News

Prince Harry will marry a divorced American — and the church is fine with it

Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan Markle pose for the media in the grounds of Kensington Palace in London, Monday Nov. 27, 2017. It was announced Monday that Prince Harry, fifth in line for the British throne, will marry American actress Meghan Markle in the spring, confirming months of rumors. (Eddie Mulholland/Pool via AP)

Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle pose for the media in the grounds of Kensington Palace in London, Monday Nov. 27, 2017. It was announced Monday that Prince Harry, fifth in line for the British throne, will marry American actress Meghan Markle in the spring, confirming months of rumors. (Eddie Mulholland/Pool via AP)

LONDON (RNS) — A British royal marrying an American divorcee in 1936 threw the British monarchy and the Church of England into crisis, but that didn’t happen when Prince Harry decided to marry Meghan Markle.

The announcement in London Monday (Nov. 27) that Prince Harry is engaged to the American actress ended fevered speculation about the couple and was accompanied by statements of delight from Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, and his father, heir to the throne Prince Charles.

It was so very different from the last time a British royal wanted to marry an American divorcee. That 1936 engagement led to the abdication of the king, Edward VIII, who decided he would rather give up the throne than divorced Baltimore socialite Wallis Simpson.

Former King Edward VIII married American divorcee Wallis Simpson. Photo courtesy of @HistoryFootnote, Twitter

The sticking point in 1936 was the rule on divorce and remarriage in the Church of England, of which the monarch of the United Kingdom is head. The church’s ban on remarriage for a divorced person whose previous spouse is alive applied to King Edward, and still held for Queen Elizabeth’s sister, Princess Margaret, in 1953. She was told she could not marry the man she loved, Captain Peter Townsend, because the Church of England would not countenance it.

Her only path to marry him would be to renounce her right to the throne — and to effectively leave the royal family. She chose to not marry the Royal Air Force officer.

In 2005, the situation was different for the divorced Prince Charles, who wanted to marry the divorced Camilla Parker Bowles. He was free to remarry as a divorced man, because his first wife, Princess Diana, had died. But Parker Bowles’ first husband was still alive. The prince married Parker Bowles in a compromise: They tied the knot in a civil ceremony and then had an Anglican blessing for their marriage in St. George’s Chapel, at Windsor Castle, conducted by then-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

By then the Church of England had agreed that in certain circumstances those divorced could marry in church, but not if the relationship of the couple wishing to marry had caused the divorce, or if the latest wedding could cause public scandal. On those grounds, the church felt it was inadvisable for Prince Charles and Parker Bowles to have a full church wedding.

Today, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby revealed no qualms about Prince Harry marrying a divorcee, a sign of how the Church of England has changed. “I wish them many years of love, happiness and fulfillment and ask that God blesses them throughout their married life together,” said the archbishop.

Britain’s Prince Harry’s fiancee Meghan Markle shows off her engagement ring as she poses for photographers during a photocall in the grounds of Kensington Palace in London, Monday Nov. 27, 2017. Britain’s royal palace says Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle are engaged and will marry in the spring of 2018. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

He also said, suggesting that the couple have already settled on an Anglican wedding ceremony: “I am so happy that Prince Harry and Ms. Markle have chosen to make their vows before God.”

It would have been a lot tougher for Prince Harry and Markle had she turned out to be Catholic. There has been speculation that Markle is Roman Catholic because she was educated at Immaculate Heart, an exclusive Los Angeles Catholic school. But press reports indicate that her parents chose it for its strong academics, rather than its religious character.

If Markle had indeed been Catholic she would have been unable, as a divorced woman, to marry in her own church unless it had declared her previous marriage invalid.

And until just four years ago, being Catholic would also have prevented her marrying into the British royal family, unless the person she intended to marry renounced his right to be in the line of succession.

It was only in 2013 that the Succession to the Crown Act was passed, enabling a Catholic to marry someone in line to the throne. What that act did not change was the requirement that the British sovereign be a Protestant.

Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle walk away after posing for the media in the grounds of Kensington Palace in London, Monday Nov. 27, 2017. It was announced Monday that Prince Harry, fifth in line for the British throne, will marry American actress Meghan Markle in the spring, confirming months of rumors. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

But Britain’s religious heritage — its roots in the break with Rome enacted by Henry VIII — still resonates in royal affairs today. Given that the British monarch is also by law the head of the Church of England, any further reform is unlikely, unless the monarch’s role as head of the church is abolished.

About the author

Catherine Pepinster

73 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “What god has joined together, no man may put asunder.”*

    See, the sanctity of marriage is only important when gay people want to get married. Divorce? You can always find a way around something as trivial as that.

    That being said, I really don’t care. Best wishes to Harry, who really seems to be a prince of a fellow, and Meghan. Good luck with Grammaw Betty, though.

    *exceptions apply. There will be a CONVENIENCE charge.

  • His succession should be renounced. Elizabeth’s sister could not marry her 1st choice unless she renounced her rights to the throne. Elizabeth only became queen because of her uncle’s marriage to a divorcee. She doesn’t get to make up her own rules to benefit her own line!

  • I know when one divorces over adultery that the harmed spouse is further harmed if they remarry. I honestly don’t know any scripture saying remarriage is ok……..perhaps someone can help me here?
    Thanks.

  • All of this is governed by law, not Betty Windsor’s whim.
    Elizabeth became queen because her father was king, not because of Edward. He was king because Edward wanted Wallace more than he wanted the throne. And, according to an now deceased friend of mine who knew Edward, because eddie was a big ol’ mo, and Wallace a fig hig.

  • “perhaps someone can help me here?”

    I propose that if it’s somebody else’s life, we just not worry about it.

    We can let others live their own lives the best they can, and let God judge whether they sinned.

  • It was still because Wallis Simpson was 3x divorcee with all 3 of her husbands living that caused Elizabeth to reign after her father died.

  • I answered those question two weeks ago. Jesus said that if a man marries a divorced woman, he is committing adultery.

    The New International Version translates the passage Matthew 5:32 as:

    But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

    Seems pretty clear to me. But then, I haven’t appointed myself god’s bestie.

    But it does make me wonder whether you are divorced and remarried. And if so, your usual obsession makes me wonder about your first husband.

  • Your ancient scripture was written by ancient men. We have evolved to a better understanding of human needs, especially since we now live twice as long as they did in biblical times.

  • My quandary comes in with remarriage more than anything. I’ve been told there is scripture, been directed to it, and yet,cannot see what they see.
    This is what He said:
    Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

  • And then what? Do you want them to go and live a good life together, or do you want them to go to helll? Please be honest about your interest in this matter?

  • But there it is in front of you. God saying it far more clearly than he says most things, and certainly clearer than any of your pronouncements about homosexuality..

    So why is it that you are questioning god’s word when it is staring you in the face? And especially, when you insist no one else should be able to do it?

    BTW, you didn’t answer my question.

  • There is more to it elsewhere, I am led to understand. I was correcting what you had said.
    You asked me no questions.

  • What could there possibly be that is more to it? Jesus said what he said. He didn’t contradictict himself elsewhere. Paul did— the Pauline exception. but then, Paul did that all the time.

    I asked you two questions. They are right there in black and white. Are you divorced and remarried? And, lest subtlety be contra-indicated, if so, was your first husband gay?

  • There is OT scripture about a woman remarrying…..and something else somewhere. I was hoping to hear more scripture on the issue and that is why I posted what I did.
    Ben, we are speaking to each other like two adults at this point in time, and that is very nice. I’m sorry though. My personal life is personal.
    This I will share this with you though, as I have posted it before. I became interested in the whole homosexual thing and the church when a family member decided she was a homosexual. I read several books, and started to really, really look at scripture on the subject as I wanted a full understanding of exactly what was being said.
    Apparently, the family member went to a site called “Soulforce” and believed the BS that he was espousing, believing that he was a Christian because he had supposedly worked with Billy Graham. (As you know, one can sit in a garage, but that does not make them a car)
    After seeing this young person throw away what I believed was her Christianity, and have since learned that a) she will show herself to be a prodigal, or b) she was never a Christian because one cannot know Christ as He is, and walk away from that.
    Either way, I prayed a lot about the matter, as it was very upsetting for me and continued to do my daily readings in the Bible, where I picked up a ton of extra scriptures condemning her decision.
    I got online and chatted extensively about the matter and continued to learn more.
    When I am online, and have any “control” in the matter, I will assure that the lost person knows that homosexuality is a sin and the consequences of all sin.
    I still find things in the Bible regularly that I add to a site for things I want to remember and share. If I can help anyone to turn to Christ, I hope He will use me to do so and will continue to put clarifications of lies on the internet to protect precious people.
    It is very sad to watch someone choose death over life.
    That’s my story Ben.

  • I’ll just assume what I thought was true is true. It explains a lot.
    Your relative sounds pretty healthy to me, and soulforce has done a lot of good to counteract the toxic religious messages that youre so fond of. But your upset over it suggests a few other things explanations for your general behavior.
    But I’ll respect your privacy.

  • Thank you. I don’t go to homosexual sites and argue, although I think that could be a lot of fun .
    I would just prefer people know the truth before they commit themselves to any situation, and the consequences. Blessings.

  • The question was– Do you want them to go on and live good life together…..? You ignored the most important aspect of the question. Hell is just a concept and not a geographical area. And since you do not wish them well, that implies that you want God to punish them in some manner for disobeying what you believe to be God’s word. So please be honest with the readers.

  • The question was– Do you want them to go on and live good life together…..
    You cannot even be honest enough to answer that question?

  • Jesus allowed an exception for adultery because in that case the adulterer is made such by her own actions, not by the divorcing husband’s. His own legal father Joseph, a “just man,” contemplated a divorce for the very same reason. Although of course the example of Hosea would encourage forgiveness and reconciliation of at all possible— it’s a beautiful picture of God’s love.

    Paul addressed the difficult situation where one spouse becomes part of the Body of Christ but not the other. Here the spouses are unequally yoked and not truly joined together by God as Jesus described, so the unbeliever (not the believer) may of course dissolve the union if he/she insists, leaving the believer free.

    The technicalities don’t really matter; simply knowing that divorce is something God hates is reason enough to not mess with it.

  • Hey Sandy, I was unaware of your story. Let me offer this.

    Everybody’s got “family drama”, “personal issues”, and it can get painful sometimes, trust me. Devil says he won already, says he got your loved one. But he lies. This ain’t over.

    Just one Spirit-filled, Bible-believing Christian in a family — just one — can bring great changes & blessings & spiritual warfare for the rest of the family, even if “nothing is working, it’s all over.

    Here’s the truth: It ain’t over. You ARE another Abraham who smashes the evil raiders who tried to steal his family members (Gen. 14:14-16). Gay slavery (and other addictions) are among those raiders. But the devil is a liar. “Soulforce” is a liar.

    You’ve already made a big difference in your relative’s life, more than you know. Meanwhile, gay slavery can be defeated and destroyed by the great salvation and healing power of the living Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 6:9-11.) It ain’t over.

    Whatever your current circumstances are, you just be encouraged. People are praying for you, and unseen peace and strength are on you. Keep your prayers going, your fastings and Scripture. Relax & humbly rest in Christ. And smash all raiders.

  • You offered Sandi no answer to her question.

    In fact, this is one of those areas — and there are many — where atheism is simply WORTHLESS in terms of offering answers to important life questions.

    Meanwhile, I was able to find a halfway brief, halfway decent article that at least offers readable, caring, Bible-based answers. So here it is, for anybody interested.

    http://www.trail.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=402986

  • Just wanna say, You own this comments section. Something new, warm, the unseen-Sandi whatever, self-styled. I LIKE IT. Wonderful, isn’t it? Must be like what Jesus experienced. When they turned against Him – yet He reached out to them even so, like a brother to them all. Give’em grace too, my sister Sandi in Christ!

  • He is not really in much of the line of succession to King unless he suddenly pulls a Richard III. So they can cut him a lot of slack here.

  • I disagree! The oldest man, Methuselah, lived nearly a thousand years. You see, prior to the Flood the future floodwaters were stored as vapor in the upper atmosphere – all the way to the exosphere. That protected us from harmful cosmic particles. After the flood, the radiation affected our DNA and shortened life spans. Abraham only lived to 175 years and much later Moses attained 120 years. In a scriptural reference in the Hebrew Scriptures, the max was 70 to 80. Those darn cosmic rays!!

    Scientists, often misled by Satan, dispute the biblical version.

  • Good to hear that you gonna (finally) respect Sandi’s privacy, Ben. Real good.

    Sandi answered you correctly, by the way: she does NOT have to reveal personal information to you like that. I’m glad she was strong enough to politely refuse your request.

    First, this is the Internet, and this RNS forum is wide-open to everybody, including the creep-jobs. So it’s strictly each participant’s own call on sharing personal & family stuff.

    Second, you were in fact invading her privacy. Trying to get her personal family stuff so you could attack her. (And again, your position is a proven misinterpretation of Scripture, so no matter what she said, you’d have jumped on it anyway!)

    But there’s some juicy personal questions that could be thrown at YOU about you and yours, yes? Yes sir! (Since I am COGIC, I really want you to give me the phone number of that “COGIC minister” who did your wedding. I gotta mash his potatoes !!)

    But meanwhile, we do our debates WHILE respecting other people’s private lives. Gotta leave family members out of it. I don’t need to know your private family stuff unless YOU choose to share it openly. That’s a necessary part of my respect for you.

  • Atheists are bad at offering answers because we acknowledge what we don’t know (and might never know) and will only deal in evidence or facts. We have a pretty good framework on how the universe works – what we can predict, test and prove. Religion can have an answer for everything because they make them up. Easy! It’s fiction compared to the secularist’s non-fiction. Yet Christianity has screwed the fiction up. Their book – inspired by god – is historically and scientifically wrong, confusing, contradictory and fuzzy. So much so that it’s interpretation has led to thousands of denominations and sects. You would think god could do a better job. Those cryptic instructions for assembling Chinese toya are less confusing than the Bible!

  • My ex-wife, a Jehovah Witness, could not remarry into the church because we divorced for irreconcilable differences. To help her, I wrote a letter to the Elders admitting to post-divorce sex, (i remained faithful during our marriage) allowing her to claim adultery since biblically we were still married. I believe that, though harsh, aligns with what Jesus outlined. That’s how Really True Christians© do it. No exceptions.

  • She’s been happy to reveal lots of things before, like she’s married, her husband calls her sunshine, and I’m pretty sure she has a kid, more likely two, at least one of them, but probably both, a daughter. It’s not too difficult to guess what her issues are. So I thought I would ask. She chose not to answer. I have no problem with that.

    I do find your sudden respect for respect and privacy pretty interesting.

  • Scripture doesn’t address what is deemed irreconcilable differences, not does it address spousal abuse or drunkenness or desertion or bigamy or a whole host of other failings. Nor does it address a 15 minute civil marriage ceremony. But perhaps 1 Corinthians 7: 10:15 might also be applicable..

  • Go back to Deuteronomy 24 1-4, I have read that the historical context may have been a factor as divorce had allowed for a practice of ‘trading up’ of wives (a la Trump style) and the Pharisees were being held accountable for how they interpreted that.

  • “If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not bound in such cases, God has called us to peace”. ! Cor.7:15

  • Apparently. Christianity is worthless answering important questions as well. Otherwise, Sandi would have her answers. But the problem is, for her personal own reasons, she doesn’t like the answers. Nor does she like minding her own business, which is probably what most atheists would come up with, seeing as we are not always trying to mind other people’s business for them.

    Which is all the marriage of two young people none of us are ever likely to know is— someone else’s lives.

  • There is always the catholic exception, becuase there is ALWAYS the catholic exception. Just pretend it never happened and get an annulment.

  • 1936: The Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Bible as the rule and guide of the Church of England, forbids the current Queen’s Uncle David to marry a divorced woman.

    1953: The Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Bible as the rule and guide of the Church of England, forbids the current Queen’s sister to marry a divorced man.

    2005: The Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Bible as the rule and guide of the Church of England, permits the current Queen’s son to marry a divorced woman and open and notorious adulteress.

    2017: The Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Bible as the rule and guide of the Church of England, permits the current Queen’s grandson to marry a divorced woman.

    Such are the times and seasons of a religion made of the commandments of men, mingled with scripture …

  • So the human bones found in East Africa that collective science agrees are approximately 1 million years old were also after the flood? Please stop the BS, as we can even date the age of the bones today, and that is not scientific guesswork.

  • Her question has no relevance to the happiness of these two people. She is only looking for answers in one place, and nothing I can tell her would make the slightest bit of difference to her.

  • The word “bound” in this case is better understood in the context of ‘slavery’. No woman or no man should have to live under the same household with an unbeliever who doesn’t wish to follow the ways of the Lord. The couple should separate but the “one flesh” union is still in place. Only death can separate such a bond. That is why Jesus said some will be “eunuchs” by choice.

  • Sandi…..it is my belief, and I think I can prove it within the context of Scripture, that Jesus here is referring to the law of Virginity — Deut 22:13. And Joseph and Mary is that example. Joseph and Mary’s family made a contract/covenant that Mary was to be Joseph’s wife. Mary ‘failed’ her requirements of that covenant by becoming pregnant. It took an Angel to convince Joseph (a just man) to remain with Mary because she was still a virgin, even though she was now pregnant.

    I know you don’t open sites you don’t know etc., etc…….but a man named Edward Ridenour has written some great articles on this subject. Just do a search for his name. Search —

    BIBLICAL MARRIAGE and The Erroneous Marriage Covenant

    By Edward Ridenour

  • So you are saying that with all of these pronouncements by the church and the bible, it’s all really a matter of what men say?

    Welcome to atheism. We knew that already.

  • Thank you. How does that allow for remarriage. I have heard that one used for remarriage and cannot figure how.

  • First of all, I cannot condone you lying to the people. Second of all, JWs are not Christians, but, the lying still is wrong..

  • I read it that way at first but it’s not necessarily false. He was faithful while they were civilly married. After the civil divorce, not necessarily. But in the eyes of the JW org, they were still married, so his “adultery” allowed his former wife to remarry within JW.

  • Appreciate this very much Shawnie. I’m going to take a good look at it, because it’s been something I’ve been kind of dealing with for a while. I appreciate this and the time you took to answer. Thank you.

  • From an Article — the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 – “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain “togetherness” (note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.
    Article can be found — areyoumarried dot wordpress dot com

  • “So you are saying that with all of these pronouncements by the church and the bible, it’s all really a matter of what men say?”

    Not at all.

    I am criticizing inconsistency by the Church of England, the same way I criticize inconsistency by the United States Supreme Court.

    Consider:
    9 July 1868: The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified. That amendment reads:
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
    Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4.
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5.
    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    *****
    In 1896, a question arises as to the meaning of “equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court, in the case Plessy v. Ferguson, states on 18 May 1896 that facilities can be segregated by race provided that the facilities are equal — thus answering the question.

    As of 18 May 1896, the Fourteenth Amendment still reads as follows:
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
    Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4.
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5.
    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    ******
    On 17 May 1954, in the case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court says that the act of segregating facilities by race constitutes unequal protection. As of that date, the Fourteenth Amendment still reads as follows:
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
    Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4.
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5.
    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    *****
    THE POINT:
    Both the Supreme Court of 1954, and the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 21st century, claim to operate in accordance with a set of laws. Both disregard those laws and follow their own whims as it suits their purposes.

    The Supreme Court, with the Constitution as their rule and guide, answered the question of segregation in 1896. Unless and until the Fourteenth Amendment is amended or repealed, the question remains answered.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Bible as his rule and guide, answered the question of a member of the Royal Family marrying a divorced person in 1936. Unless and until the Bible is amended or repealed, the question remains answered.

  • God bless you floydlee. I thank you for your encouragement. I’m so touched by it, that I shared it with my husband. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me that it isn’t over, until it’s all over. Thank you. 🙂

  • If God could change his mind about whether Adam needed a helper, or whether floods were a good thing, the ABC can change his mind about anything he likes – and will.

  • “Till Death Do you Part”……almost every couple recites it; but they don’t know how ‘real’ it is.

  • “Any further reform [to ‘Britain’s religious heritage’] is unlikely, unless the monarch’s role as head of the church is abolished”? But, hey, ‘yo, since Israel’s Messiah Jesus as “head of the church” has long been “abolished” already, who cares?! God & Jesus don’t either. Not until D-Day, that is, I mean J-Day. Tada! – Judgment Day!

    Congratulations by the way there, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and be merry until then, ‘yo, like the rest of humanity, here, and everywhere else.

  • “Both the Supreme Court of 1954, and the Archbishop of Canterbury in the
    21st century, claim to operate in accordance with a set of laws. Both
    disregard those laws and follow their own whims as it suits their
    purposes.”

    Um no. Rules and laws which are arbitrary in nature and enforced in a way to create injustice, demand change with more enlightened times and for the greater justice of those governed by them.

    Inconsistency is actually a very good thing for both religion and law. Generally strict arbitrary blind adherence to given rules only serves those seeking oppression and lacking a moral basis for their position. Simply falling on the word of the law but missing the spirit of it. Rule of law without justice is meaningless.

    Changing with the times to promote the greater good is why we call the expansion of freedom “progress”.

  • Sandi is both a bigot and a dodger. Keep pushing her and you might squeeze an answer out, but if she responds with her usual, vacuous “lol” or “yawn”, she’s acknowledging that her beliefs are nonsense and that she can’t support them.

  • Aww Someone’s feeling is hurt.

    And oh is this you, by the way?

    According to Daniel Fincke, an atheist himself (cf. “Why I Criticize My Fellow Atheists”, Camels with Hammers, June 17, 2013): Atheists “settle for sloppy thinking or become ethically lazy or self-righteously self-satisfied. … They give little impression they are interested in the kinds of ongoing introspection and self-suspicion that are invaluable to personal growth.” Atheists are “just looking for flaws in theism or religious people’s behavior out of some animus … prejudice or malice. … Some atheists really do seem to have gotten into this movement to indulge in their feelings of superiority to those they pitilessly disparage as ‘stupid’ or wicked. … They are just in this to throw rocks at the ‘retards’. I have no sympathies with such people and am ashamed that they’re associated with me. … Since my fellow atheists profess to share many of my core intellectual and moral values, I am all the more disappointed in them when they are in violation of those values. I don’t want them to be hypocrites with respect to those values since their failures make all atheists, including me, look bad and set back our cause.”

  • It is not about me or Jim, it is about science, you know science, that is how we are able to communicate instantly electronically, and a million other new realities born of science. The ancient text is neither an accurate history book nor are they facts of science.

ADVERTISEMENTs